Animal People:
Why Do Animal Rights Activists Care About Animals and Not About People?

By Syed Rizvi (Engineers
and Scientists for Animal Rights) in SouthAsia Magazine
December 2010

On the surface, the question appears to be quite legitimate. After all,
why care about animals when so many humans are suffering? However, behind
the question there lies an element of preeminence that can also be
extrapolated to a purely human hypothetical: should wealthy nations - The
United States, for example - offer assistance to poor countries, when their
own poor also need help? One case involves crossing the species' barrier,
while the other can be seen as crossing the barrier of nationality, or even
race, to some extent.

The question posed above comes with the same political and racial fervor
among some such as whites should help whites first. Although such bias is
politically incorrect in today's pluralistic, multicultural society, a small
but radical element of society do harbor such views. Fortunately, with our
cultural and sociological evolution, most have risen above the "stick- with-
your-own-kind" mind set - a vestige of our tribal days that has no place
today's worldview.

Proponents of animal rights go a step beyond, and include animals within the
sphere of their moral concern. They see animals as sentient beings with
interests of their own, who wish to live a life natural to them. Like
people, animals try to avoid pain and seek comfort, and have a family
structure of their own. When a cow gives birth to her calf, we mercilessly
drag him away from the mother while she grieves and the calf is destined to
spend his entire life in restrictive confinement where he can hardly stretch
or turn around. Watch Ohio
Dairy Farm Brutality.

This imposition on the life of animals by humans is morally deplorable in
the eyes of animal rights proponents. They do not see animals as objects to
be exploited. While this view of animals has been predominant since the
early days of civilization, so has been the practice of regarding women as
inferior being created to serve man. The imprimatur of long-standing
tradition does not justify practices considered unjust today. Alice Walker
(author of Color Purple) expresses this eloquently in her preface to
Marjorie Spiegel's classic "The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal
Slavery." Walker writes: "Animals of the world exist for their own reasons.
They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for
whites or women for men."

Animal rights people see pain as pain, whosoever pain it is, and will make
every effort to minimize it, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of
the sufferer.

In many ways, the case on behalf of animals becomes even more compelling.
Since animals cannot speak for themselves, the element of pathos is added to
other moral components. Animals are handicapped when it comes to the power
humans have over them. Most suffering inflicted upon animals comes from
humans, over whom animals have no control.

Once compassion for animals is aroused, the starkness of their plight
becomes ever more apparent. For example, in a city like Karachi the animal
population is several orders of magnitude greater than human population, yet
the number of animal hospitals and veterinarians in Karachi can be counted
on the fingers of one hand. The number of hospitals and other medical
facilities for humans can run into the hundreds if not thousands. Globally,
the number of organizations dedicated to helping animals is minuscule
compared with the number of organizations helping humans, although the human
population is tiny compared with the number of animals in the world.

The irony is that not only do people deprive animals of their rights,
they often rebuke anyone speaking on animals' behalf, with comments like
"human problems come first." With such a mindset one cannot help but wonder
what exactly it is that they are doing for humans, that compels them to
continue the mistreatment of animals.

Meanwhile, those fighting animal abuse are criticized for not doing anything
to address child abuse. Yes, there is child abuse in the world, as there is
animal abuse. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two:
While child abuse is universally seen as an evil in society, animal abuse is
not. In fact, animal abuse has become institutionalized to the point it is
accepted as a norm. With such indifference toward animals, their suffering
becomes invisible to us, unless someone brings it to our attention. Even
then, in most cases our response is no more than a simple brush off: "They
are only animals."

Animal people are also alleged of attending to wrong priorities when the
world is facing so many other problems. It is true there are issues and
challenges that need to be addressed. We have world hunger and malnutrition;
war, terrorism and nuclear proliferation; global warming, and more.
Thankfully, there are organizations and individuals attempting to address
those issues. Many of these issues are interconnected and cannot be
addressed separately. It would be absurd to say, for example, "Let's first
address world hunger and then work on global warming." Nobody accuses
Doctors without Borders of a failure to address the causes of war or
terrorism. We do not expect those who are addressing world hunger to do
anything to address environmental degradation. But when it comes to
defending the rights of animals, its proponents are ridiculed. Every effort
to alleviate suffering in our world is worthy - and necessary - in its own
right. Singling out animal rights organizations focusing on their supposed
wrong priorities reflects our society's prejudice against animals called
speciesism that is not very different from the prejudices of racism and
sexism that were societal norms not too long ago.

Another accusation directed toward animal rights proponents is that the
resources expended on animals could better be used to help, say, the
starving children in Africa. The obvious response is to point out that
feeding those starving children may also be considered far more important
than, say, that extra $10,000 spent on a luxury automobile; moreover, a $100
watch may tell time just as accurately as a $5,000 watch. In fact, if animal
advocates were to divert some of their resources from the cause of animal
rights onto some luxury items that feed their egos rather than the stomachs
of African children, it seems unlikely they will ever be confronted with
accusations of moral non-equivalence. What this demonstrates is the human
propensity for hypocritical self-justification, rather than anything
objective about animal rights versus human rights.

The question which forms the title of this article is inherently skewed
toward demeaning the animal rights proponents. No answer would suffice where
the motive of the question is apparent. On the other hand, if the question
is asked in good faith, then yes, an answer to it can be found in the
writings of the 19th century American Philosopher Harriet Beecher, who said:
"It is a matter of taking sides of the weak against the strong, something
the best of people have ever done."

Note: The condescending attitude toward animal people can be primarily due
to lack of public awareness about what we are doing to animals. The award
winning film Earthlings narrated by actor Joaquin Phoenix may open our
eyes.

Syed Rizvi is a physicist by profession, and through his group, Engineers
and Scientists for Animal Rights, he reaches out to the scientific and
technical communities, promoting the animal rights philosophy. Syed lives in
Silicon Valley, California. Email:
esar01@aol.com

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material
whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web
constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for
purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from
the copyright owner.